Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I renew my request that I regain the floor at that time.

Mr. STEVENS. I was called off of the floor. I have been seeking to ensure that there will be some limitations on Senators speaking on this amendment. How long does the Senator intend to speak?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator be recognized for 10 minutes and I will retain the floor at that time.

Mr. STEVENS. I understand the Senator wishes 5 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. I see the Senator from Nevada is here. Does the Senator seek time on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota. I did not mean to limit his time. He asked for 2 minutes, and he got 2 minutes. Would the Senator like more time?

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is very conservative. It is nice to see one on the floor. Two minutes for the Senator from South Dakota, and then I retain the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. I beg your pardon. I am in error. Mr. President, let me apologize to the Senator from South Dakota. I did commit to the Senator from Minnesota that I would yield to him 6 minutes at this time. And I yield the floor for 6 minutes so he might have the floor for 6 minutes, with the same understanding that I retain the floor at the end of that time. At this time let me have an understanding with the Senator from South Dakota that he would automatically be recognized before I be recognized again. How much time does the Senator from South Dakota seek?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, does the Senator seek time on this matter?

Mr. STEVENS. We are trying to sort of reduce that time so we can get to the motion to table.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I reject that suggestion. As the Senator knows, the change is required for the $139 million that he is proposing. We are working from a 1996 base, and that is what we are equalizing. This is a growing program. Why should some States be less than they were in 1996, while other States grow at such a rate they are far in excess of 1996? Again, I have been trying to read what the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Public Works Committee, said in the statements before the Senate. The additional funds provided by the Appropriations Committee hardly give an unfair advantage to 29 States. In fact, the only States that actually receive additional funds in 1997, when compared to 1996, are the so-called donor States that are offering the amendment that is before us today. Mr. President, this is an issue that, in my opinion was resolved after the administration initially fixed its error last December. Unfortunately, the administration has reopened this complicated issue. The Appropriations Committee has developed a fair solution to a difficult problem, and they should be congratulated. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I yield the remainder of my time. I yield the remainder my time. I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Do I have any time left?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia wanted to change the law. The President wanted to change the law with the $318 million. If the Senator wants to delete the $318 million, the $475 million would come out. But the $139 million that the President did not request is the one that is to correct the error. The moneys we have added to what the President requests is to make it fair and to correct the impact of the underlying Treasury error. I say again, we have used the 1996 formula. The President's request would be an $318 million addition for a few States based primarily on one category of the 1996 formula. We equalize that with what we have done. I do not say we have changed the thrust of the law. We have changed in terms of the formula.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to move to table the amendment, but I want to be fair. So, I would like to play gatekeeper and ask those who want time to tell me how much time they would like on this amendment before I make a motion to table. Senator Thurmond, 4 minutes; Senator Hutchinson, 5 minutes; Senator Warner, 3 minutes; 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida; 5 minutes to Senator Lautenberg; and Senator Bingaman wants 4 minutes. I would like 1 minute to close. Do we have those written down? I will repeat it. Five minutes to Senator Hutchinson; 4 minutes to Senator Thurmond; 3 minutes to Senator Warner; 1 minute to Senator Domenici; 5 minutes to Senator Lautenberg; 4 minutes to Senator Bingaman; 5 minutes to Senator Graham; and 1 minute to me as we close: I ask unanimous consent that I recover the floor at the expiration of the time other than my last 1 minute.

Mr. STEVENS. I have 24 minutes. I understand you have 28 minutes. It is 27 minutes not including my last 1 minute. So that would mean that we would vote at approximately 25 minutes after 11; somewhere around there.

Mr. STEVENS. As the chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, points out in his statement, in July of last year they tried to correct this error from the Treasury Department. The Senator from Virginia, if he looks at the chart before the Senate, will see that if we make the changes solely requested by the Senator from Virginia, all donor states would end up with all zero growth from 1996 to 1997. All those zeros in the first column show the inequity of not doing the $475 million. Because the inequity, if we provide $318 million to one part of this package without the $475 million, would create a total inequity as far as all those States that have no growth in their allocation over 1996. I am referring to all those States that have zeros in the first column. If the Senator would look at it, he will see why we felt compelled, if we grant the President's request of $318 million, to provide the $475 million. No one argues about the $139 million even though it was not requested by the administration. I do not think there is an argument about the $139 million. It was a result of the Treasury error. To perpetuate the error is to grant the $318 million the President requested without adding the $475 million.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator asked me a question and I want to answer that. The Senator from Florida is recognized. Do you permit me to answer?

Mr. STEVENS. The administration only requested $318 million. It did not request $139 million or $475 million. It requested $318 million. But if we grant the $318 million, we must put in the $475 million, and as long as we do it we must correct the basic error, the $139 million that came from the original error of the Treasury Department, but we will perpetuate the error of the Treasury Department by providing the $318 million unless we provide the $475 million.

Mr. STEVENS. That is not so. The $475 million is tied to the $318 million. If we grant the administration's requested $318 million, we must put in the $475 million. The $139 million is to correct totally for the original error. The $318 million asked for by the administration effectively perpetuates the error unless we put in the $475 million to equate the $318 million. It is 2 years. We are correcting the 1996 allocation on the $139 million. We are correcting the 1997 allocation based on $318 million requested by the administration and by the $475 million to provide that no State receive less in 1997 than they did in 1996. The $475 million goes with the $318 million.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we provided $318 million as requested by the administration. The $139 million that the Senator from Virginia references was to correct the basic error. The additional $475 million was to make whole the States in 1997 whose obligation limitation was under the 1996 level to bring it to what it was in 1996. So there are two functions to the error. As far as the 1997 levels, the $475 million, it is not involved. That is to bring up their apportionment, bring them back up to the 1996 level. The $475 million makes the 29 States whose obligation limit was below their 1996 appropriation--it brings them up to the 1996 level in 1997.

Mr. STEVENS. I say to the Senator, we made a commitment last night that we would move to table this amendment sometime around 9:30. We were not specific. If we are to get to the other portions of this bill, including the Senators from Texas, from Arizona, the Senator from Nevada, if we are going to get through those long amendments that pertain to items in the bill concerning money and legislation, we are going to have to get some time limit on amendments. I am serving notice as chairman that when I believe we have reached the point of having equitable distribution of comments on this subject, I am going to move to table it, and I am going to do the same thing with other amendments today until we get to the point where some of them will have to have up-or-down votes. As far as I am concerned, this is an amendment that seeks unfairness, and I shall seek to table it at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.